• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How hard is it to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan? Very hard.

A post about Iraq is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

There were 3,527 American KIA's in Iraq. Why do you keep lieing about the numbers?



Look at post 75 and it will all come back to you. As to the Iraqi war KIA:

For troops in the U.S.-led multinational coalition, the death toll is carefully tracked and updated daily, and the names and photographs of those killed in action as well as in accidents have been published widely. A total of 4,486 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012.[14] Regarding the Iraqis, however, information on both military and civilian casualties is both less precise and less consistent. Estimates of casualty levels are available from reporters on the scene, from officials of involved organizations, and from groups that summarize information on incidents reported in the news media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
 
The Nazis felt their cause was justified. Are you going to defemd them, as well?

Your finally getting the point. Everyone thinks when they go to war it's justified. It makes a real good reason for being anti-war!
 
I love terrorism. It's a fantastic tactic the US taught and exported to the rest of the world.

"As many critics have pointed, out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world." - General William Odom, NSA Director under Reagan.

A great find that will make the pro-war crowds eyes glass over. It will largely go ignored.
 
I directly addressed numerous aspects of your rant, pointing out it was based on faulty assumptions and various other logical fallacies What does that have to do with the point about backwards Afghan cultural practices and your attempt to defend and justify them? Right, nothing 1) Don't get your history from a movie. The truth is, outside urban centers there was very little support for a powerful centralized govt and a reistence formed organically long before any involvement from Washington 2) Why would I need to answer for or justify what Ronald Reagan said and did? Especially in the context of you trying to justify brutal cultural behaviors by appealing to some form of perceived ingrained and inescapable expression of nature? No, any culture that thinks it's cool to stone a rape victim to death is indeed inferior on the point of women's rights, to cultures that do not behave in such a manner. Yes, because short of isolated pockets that we would attempt to address through higher state authority, such is clearly viewed as unacceptable in a modern context. Which means we have moved on and corrected that inferior behavior Wait, so a dad killing his daughters rapist is analogous to killing his daughter for being raped? Again, you should really think these things through Yes, if you mean assuming that brown people can overcome historical cultural trappings, like anyone else. I am indeed guilty

You present no proof, far from it, you deflect and claim because our President once saw the Muslim extremeists as the 'founding fathers' then but now we attack them as 'inferior' you don't have to address that... :roll:

Again you try and make this a us-them thing- which you at first claim is not the proper metric... i defend nothing the 'freedom fighters' did or as the same gangs are now called 'terrorists'. I find an easy to read BOOK, not movie, to show you where we once slapped the backs of the religious extremists as honorable men. make up crap to try and scoff at it, it is typical CON deflection.

fact is you skip right over where the Aghanis had a fairly moderate government until the Soviets invaded to concentrate on the religious extremists WE helped put into power.

You twist the point I make on the dad killing a rapist. It is a matter of degree, you refuse to accept that and just try and make this them brutal, us noble civilized. :roll:

To many our society is decadent, pornographic, corrupt, and many outside the beltway, just like outside Kabul, have little respect for the central government.

But all of this is a CON deflection- the point is and will remain, it isn't their 'inferior' culture but their desire to resists anything the decadent and corrupt West attempts to foist off on them.

Now the stoning thing you cling to- once we thought nothing of killing a black man for whistling at a white girl. Acquit men who murder 'freedom riders', and restrict the voting rights of fellow Americans. All not part of some ancient past but within my own lifetime. If the reactionary Taliban is seen as barbaric then they are only 50 years behind us. They focus on gender, we focused on race.

I NEVER condoned stoning a rape victim, but how many CONS love the idea of cutting the hand off a thief? Or the penis of a rapist? Again it is a matter of degree you refuse to admit exists. We don't condone cold blooded murder but we do give a great deal of leeway to a father killing in cold blood a man he thinks raped his daughter. We have a new defense- affluensa for poor richie rich types. You see the Islamic extremists as barbaric, but refuse to consider the average Afghani, who this is about, sees Western Society as barbaric/corrupt/decadent. :doh

We don't offer an acceptable alternative, we refuse to understand forcing a society to change overnite is hardly a smooth move.

The discussion hinged on a CON claiming the 'inferior culture' is unable to give their hearts and minds to a Pro-western acceptable governance and cultural morals set.

My point is as long as the 'white man's burden' mindset is continued we will be as unsuccessful as ever. :2wave:
 
I don't think Afghan culture is backwards, radical Islam is backwards...

Honestly, these non-radical simple living folk in Afghanistan hate the extremist Muslim faction just as much as we do, but at the same time they don't want us in their backyard.

Once again radical Islam can be to blame for all this conflict over the past 1500 years.

Right, radical Christianity is pretty backwards too. But we wouldn't want all Christianity Christianity characterised as such.
 
There is a big difference between guerrilla warfare where they target the military and terrorism where they target civilians. It's the target that is important not the collateral damage.

Boy there's just no end to it is there? How are we any different then the enemy we're fighting when we think the people we kill unintentionally by either hitting the wrong target or hitting a target next to grandmas house have no importance. That is the most calloused thing to say. I have some news for you. The 18,000 civilians in A-Stan that our military killed, and the hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq our military killed are just as important in life as you and I.
 
So how many peacetime years did you see in that list. Or did you choose not to go to the link and look. Because you will find that there have been very few. And, with the exception of a couple of examples, the reason you and I can go about our lives with little sacrifice is because we usually wage war against much weaker nations that can be conquered with one hand tied behind our backs. But it hasn't prevented the macho pro-war crowd from crowing aloud in victory. As though there would be something for the 200 pound senior to brag about when he beat up the third grader.

Are you actually arguing that the United States has been in a state of constant war on their own soil that long? You seem to admit it in this post. That you know that we haven't been fighting here. But then you think some link to some Internet source is relevant when trying to state that we haven't been living in a state of peace....in our country... since WW2.

You are so quick to want to correct someone. I suggest you read an entire post before trying to correct a poster because you have a different point of view. You know as well as I that the mindset if the average citizen in these countries deals with death much differently. In part because the citizens of this country don't see war on a regular basis, and theirs have been seeing war since before the British Invasion. For centuries really.
 
Right, radical Christianity is pretty backwards too. But we wouldn't want all Christianity Christianity characterised as such.

I don't know any radical Christians - I know many that define themselves by their Christian roots.....They're hardly militant to boot so...

I suppose the problem is that Christians are NOT militant but Muslims are...
 
There is a big difference between guerrilla warfare where they target the military and terrorism where they target civilians. It's the target that is important not the collateral damage.

And what you fail to get is Apdst supports carpet bombing which is the tactic of razing a city to the ground and targeting civilians. Think Dresden. That is no different then what "Terrorist" do.
 
You present no proof, far from it, you deflect and claim because our President once saw the Muslim extremeists as the 'founding fathers' then but now we attack them as 'inferior' you don't have to address that... :roll:

Yes, why would I need to defend the position and views of another person, especially when they have no relation to the point I was speaking to?

Again you try and make this a us-them thing

I'm not the one screaming about "cons" and demanding you account for the policy of Jimmy Carter ...

I find an easy to read BOOK, not movie, to show you where we once slapped the backs of the religious extremists as honorable men. make up crap to try and scoff at it, it is typical CON deflection.

1) Who denied we supported the Muhujadeen?

2) I addressed your claim that soviet policy reflected afghan society. Soviet policy reflected policies among the PDPA, but that faced popular opposition among the Afghan population: <<<Paradoxically, the more dangerous threat to Afghan Monarchy came from the left, and it was the Afghan Marxists who, in turn, triggered the emergence of a powerful clerical opposition. The Marxists resort to violence in 1978 following their seizure of power in April provoked resistance led by Muslim leaders. From 1978 they challanged the polocies of the communists, who, like the Afghan modernist reformers of the 1920s, had made the transformation of the status of women a central part of their program of state intervention in Afghan society....For their part, women in kabul and elswhere joined the resistence; in places like Kabul many adopted the veil as a symbol of their opposition to the new govt.>>>

The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan, pg 36-37

fact is you skip right over where the Aghanis had a fairly moderate government until the Soviets invaded to concentrate on the religious extremists WE helped put into power.

Yes, the PDPA, a party that gained poer through an armed coup, was moderate in their views of women. But such wasn't reflected in the rest of Afghani society, and opposition to those policies, even among women, are what fueled the armed resistance to the PDPA.

You twist the point I make on the dad killing a rapist. It is a matter of degree, you refuse to accept that and just try and make this them brutal, us noble civilized.

No, there is really nothing analogous about killing a rape victim to killing the person who committed the rape. The thought processed behind those two actions are completely different


To many our society is decadent, pornographic, corrupt, and many outside the beltway, just like outside Kabul, have little respect for the central government.

So pornography is akin to stoning a woman to death for engaging in adultery?


But all of this is a CON deflection- the point is and will remain, it isn't their 'inferior' culture but their desire to resists anything the decadent and corrupt West attempts to foist off on them.

No, your original post attempted to defend barbaric cultural practices by appealing to some inescapable aspect of their nature

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...s-afghanistan-very-hard-7.html#post1062785045


Now the stoning thing you cling to- once we thought nothing of killing a black man for whistling at a white girl.

Right, "once". But we changed that. Do you not understand the difference between the terms "past" and "present", and the importance of changing how such things are viewed in a modern context?
 
It's also a crime.

Can't criminalize a tactic. Sorry, it's a failed policy.


Oh! My bad! You're an American that hates America, not an Austrian that hates America.

Actually, I don't hate United States of America (there are other Americas then the US), love it very much, it's just not my cup of coffee when it comes to foreign policy and politically. Both sides are full of **** and sheeple lap it up. Case in point, most think we are fight to protect the US and her citizens when in reality we are fighting for resource contracts.


They were combat multipliers and performed a very small role in the overall war.

Go back and read US history again. Then come talk to me. The 13 colonies were getting it's ass handed to them by the British. It was those guerrilla tactics in the south that was keeping Cornwallis from advancing to crush Washington.



I bet you left out some very important facts in that one...LOL!!! Ever hear of the '48 War? 6-Day War? Yom Kippur War? Those were all conventional engagements.

And? I am speaking for the British Mandate of Palestine which Zionist groups fought the British from 1939-1946. It was a result of this, Israel became a state. If British could have maintained control, Israel wouldn't be a State right now. So learn some history.


Guerilla tactics don't decide wars. Never have and never will.

Republic of Ireland, Mexico, Afghanistan, and Algeria would disagree with you. Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck who held of the Allies during WW1 in East Africa. So would Sun Tzu. But hey.. what do I know.
 
Are you actually arguing that the United States has been in a state of constant war on their own soil that long? You seem to admit it in this post. That you know that we haven't been fighting here. But then you think some link to some Internet source is relevant when trying to state that we haven't been living in a state of peace....in our country... since WW2.

You are so quick to want to correct someone. I suggest you read an entire post before trying to correct a poster because you have a different point of view. You know as well as I that the mindset if the average citizen in these countries deals with death much differently. In part because the citizens of this country don't see war on a regular basis, and theirs have been seeing war since before the British Invasion. For centuries really.

What do you mean, "some Internet source"? The Wiki source not credible enough for you, I can provide others. The point that your not being able to disprove, is that the US has been at war in some form or fashion, more years than its been at peace. You cannot consider that a peaceful nation. And no, of course I don't mean on our soil, that's a rarity, and truly defensive wars. The vast majority of the wars we've been in have been off soil wars of aggression and not defensive at all.
 
I don't know any radical Christians - I know many that define themselves by their Christian roots.....They're hardly militant to boot so...

I suppose the problem is that Christians are NOT militant but Muslims are...

That's a very uneducated statement for you to make. First, just because you don't know any radical Christians Nick doesn't mean they don't exist. And secondly to throw a blanket statement on the Muslim religion is very bigoted.

Christian terrorism comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals who claim Christian motivations or goals for their actions. As with other forms of religious terrorism, Christian terrorists have relied on idiosyncratic or literal interpretations of the tenets of faith – in this case, the Bible. Such groups have cited Old Testament and New Testament scriptures to justify violence and killing or to seek to bring about the "end times" described in the New Testament.[1]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism



Christian radicalism (radical Christianity or radical discipleship) encompasses a number of different movements and actions in practical theology.[1] It entails a radical re-orientation towards the root truths of Christian discipleship through personal reflection and action.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_radicalism
 
Last edited:
“If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” Theodore Roosevelt quote ???

Or was it LBJ, John Wayne or General James Hollingsworth (CO, 1st Infantry Div) in Vietnam ?

Johnson’s phrase and the philosophy behind it was not universally accepted. For some, the hearts and minds policy was considered a “soft” approach, that control was needed first and that popular support could be addressed afterwards. Win the war and then focus on winning the peace. This was typified by the Green Berets' variation on hearts and minds:


“If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” -
U.S. Green Berets slogan during the Vietnam War


Bytes: Balls, Hearts and Minds
 
Some of these comments in this topic are over the top and more "simple minded" then the people they bash. Knowing history, which some here have absolutely no knowledge, is the key to understanding the future. So here is a the more you know special.

Afghanistan is a country rich in rebellions and refusal to be conquered. Alexander the Great conquered Iran in 6 months, it took him 3 years to "conquer" Afghanistan. Then came the Greater Khorasan Empire, Maurya Empire and Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. Then the Seleucids tried to invade and conquer the Bactrian empire. But they failed after a 3 year siege of Bactria (today known as Balkh, it's one of the oldest cities in the world). Then came the Kushan Empire, Sassanian invasion, Kabul Shahi (Shahi dynasty). Now that's history just up to 700 AD.

Then came the Muslims. For over 1200 years the Afghans fought the Muslims. Arab armies were defeated. Those that weren't, the revolting people submitted to Islam for survival but once the Arab army left they reverted back to their Hindu, Christian and other beliefs. Then they would revolt again. But this is a tactic we see to this very day by Afghans. It wasn't until 1890 the last region of Nuristan Province fully converted to Islam. Those Afghans that live in Nuristan spent centuries in resistance against Islam, but it played a bigger roll later in history but I'll get to that.

Hotaki Empire founded by a "revolutionary" Mir Wais Hotak. He is equatable to our George Washington. After it's collapse came the Durrani Empire and the rise of the Barakzai dynasty (ruled Afghanistan until 1973) and heading to the 1830s and its wars with the Shikh ans Persians. Now this is the time when the Russians and the Brits wanted to claim central Asia for themselves. It was known as the Great Game strat. British got their ass kicked by those "simple minded" Afghans. Then came the Russians and the Russian learned what the British learned a century earlier. Afghanistan is the grave yard of Empires. Now Nuristan was always a key portion of Afghan resistance. Be it the British, Russian or even American backed Afghan Government.

Now to say the Afghans, specifically the Pashtuns have no values or morals comparable to us is wrong. Hell, Americans wouldn't be going to the movies this weekend to see Lone Survivor if there was no such thing as Pashtunwali.

To ignore this history, is to not know your enemy or your friend. When the US leaves Afghanistan, the Taliban will come back. Just as Barakzai dynasty came back after the British walked away a few dozen times.

Very good assessment of the matter, although, I believe in the end it will not be just the Taliban, at least not the order they imposed before our invasion. The mineral wealth will create a new system in things, one that will include corporate interests and their contract soldiers long after the Americans have left. Somewhere in that picture will also be the Chinese, who are very close by. All in all, they will carry on with or without our help, just as everyone else in the world is doing, though some Americans just can't stand the notion that people can do that..."do without us." There must be some psychology about this...related to Munchausen by Proxy syndrome.
 
What do you mean, "some Internet source"? The Wiki source not credible enough for you, I can provide others. The point that your not being able to disprove, is that the US has been at war in some form or fashion, more years than its been at peace. You cannot consider that a peaceful nation.

That isn't what I am talking about!!!! Read what the hell I am writing instead of trying to correct it and be mister smarty pants. Did you NOT note the quotation marks around the word peace? It looked like this "peace." Do you understand what that means? Or should I explain that to you? Because that is grade school stuff. I shouldn't have to explain to you that that means "relatively speaking/sort of/peace but not really."

You are 100%, unequivocally wrong. Not about wether or not this country has been at war...but about your introduction of the United States war record...on other people's soil. That has no more relevance on this topic than what kind of shampoo I use. It doesn't matter because it isn't what I was talking about. And yet you wish to continue to make this straw man argument about something that has no relevance at all to what I am talking about. I can't think of any other way to explain this to you...but most people would have understood this by now.



And no, of course I don't mean on our soil, that's a rarity, and truly defensive wars. The vast majority of the wars we've been in have been off soil wars of aggression and not defensive at all.

THEN STOP TRYING TO ARGUE THAT IT HAS BEEN AT WAR MOST OF ITS EXISTENCE!!!! DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT I AM TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE HOME FRONT???

Now that we established that this is ABOUT the home front...then maybe you can understand that citizens of the United States don't understand what it is like to live under the threat of war...on average that is...like the citizens of Afghanistan.
 
how ethnocentric of you. That 'inferior' culture has repelled many 'superior' cultures since the time of Rudyard Kipling. ALL cultures disrespect some basic human right or another. What we think are basic rights in this country is a hot topic of discussion. Race, abortion, gay rights... you know the drill.

In a way it is like going into the desert and faulting the flora there for not being redwoods. The climate and conditions do not support that.

I'd say someone from an 'inferior' culture could come to this nation and watch thief at the point of a pistol or pen, see the future for sale in the halls of power, damning each other from the pulpit or town square and wonder how can 'goodness' survive in a nation of cannibals.

Dude, they stone women in public. Give me a break.
 
There is a big difference between guerrilla warfare where they target the military and terrorism where they target civilians. It's the target that is important not the collateral damage.

I'm always amazed how few people are sharp enough to understand that.

Perhaps I should use the word "honest" instead, because the agenda in question requires such intentional distortion in order to deceive.
 
Dude, they stone women in public. Give me a break.

Who is this 'they' you speak of? You act as if this small snapshot of Islam is the entire picture, that would be like saying a record cold day in Atlanta means there is no 'global warming'.

It wasn't that long ago a white guy could kill a black man and get away with it- the black man's crime was whistling while black, but American apologists don't call that our 'culture'.
 
“If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” Theodore Roosevelt quote ???

Or was it LBJ, John Wayne or General James Hollingsworth (CO, 1st Infantry Div) in Vietnam ?

Johnson’s phrase and the philosophy behind it was not universally accepted. For some, the hearts and minds policy was considered a “soft” approach, that control was needed first and that popular support could be addressed afterwards. Win the war and then focus on winning the peace. This was typified by the Green Berets' variation on hearts and minds:


“If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” -
U.S. Green Berets slogan during the Vietnam War


Bytes: Balls, Hearts and Minds

I can assure you Apache, that if you grabbed me by my balls, I certainly would not respond by surrendering to you, my heart and mind. That would only work with someone soft and curvy and much better looking than you! :lol:
 
That isn't what I am talking about!!!! Read what the hell I am writing instead of trying to correct it and be mister smarty pants. Did you NOT note the quotation marks around the word peace? It looked like this "peace." Do you understand what that means? Or should I explain that to you? Because that is grade school stuff. I shouldn't have to explain to you that that means "relatively speaking/sort of/peace but not really."

You are 100%, unequivocally wrong. Not about wether or not this country has been at war...but about your introduction of the United States war record...on other people's soil. That has no more relevance on this topic than what kind of shampoo I use. It doesn't matter because it isn't what I was talking about. And yet you wish to continue to make this straw man argument about something that has no relevance at all to what I am talking about. I can't think of any other way to explain this to you...but most people would have understood this by now.





THEN STOP TRYING TO ARGUE THAT IT HAS BEEN AT WAR MOST OF ITS EXISTENCE!!!! DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT I AM TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE HOME FRONT???

Now that we established that this is ABOUT the home front...then maybe you can understand that citizens of the United States don't understand what it is like to live under the threat of war...on average that is...like the citizens of Afghanistan.

Ok Stone, fair enough. This all started with you suggesting that America was/is a peaceful nation and Afghanistan knows only war. Despite the fact that war has been brought to Afghanistan by outside forces, I was taking issue with the "America is a peaceful nation" part of your post and showing that in fact America is a nation that has been at war for more of its years of existence then not. You made no differentiation in that statement, then, but you have now. So, if we're talking about the fact that most of the wars America has been involved in have not been on US soil, I readily agree with that, and THAT is evidence that the majority of the wars that America has been involved in have not been defensive by nature. Never mind the fact that no matter what the reason, the White House will ALWAYS present it as defensive.
 
Dude, they stone women in public. Give me a break.

But its a progressive stoning, Erod. .

They start with little rocks and work up to big ones, so he has to support it.
 
Back
Top Bottom